The BBC has decided to can a planned Planet Relief TV special on climate change following senior executives concerns that it "might breach impartiality guidelines".
According to Auntie, the concept surfaced about 18 months back as a "climate change counterpart to programmes such as Live8", and was pencilled for a January 2008 …

COMMENTS

Page:

Another pi$$ing contest

"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance." screamed a small but vociferous group whose real problem is globalization.

People need to wake up and realise that differences will only be noticeable if huge sacrifices to our modern consumerist way of life are made. Purchasing carbon credits or planting trees will not reduce your carbon footprint, 'cause that's already been made. If you really want a carbon neutral lifestyle, return to the Stone Age!

Plus, once again, events like these (or Earth8) don't actually acheive what they're trying to do. Flying celebrities around for these gigs, plus entourage, plus equipment, plus the fans getting to the venue do nothing more than increase the sales of the "artivists" involved.

Ricky Gervais

Impartiality

We'd also best stop the BBC discussing evolution because it conflicts with guidance from the Kansas School Board. Clearly the Big Bang is also out since it causes grave offence to believers in invisible beards. However, the evidence of a common human ancestor from mitochondrial DNA can be talked about, just so long as equal time is given to celebrity readings of 'Mein Kampf'.

why is it biased

Cowardly Indeed

The BBC had to resort to cutting away from Live8 between bands so as not to be seen as endorsing the aims of the event. We had to endure Jonathan Ross and Fearne Cotton interviewing "celebs" backstage rather than be allowed to see the films made by Ricky Gervais etc.

Translation

"Activist and writer" Mark Lynas thundered: "This decision shows a real poverty of understanding among senior BBC executives about the gravity of the situation we face." = "This decision pisses me off because it takes away a very public platform from which I could spout my particular, half-assed opinions about climate change."

"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action" = "There are people who disagree with me"

Can't have something that might make people think...

Peter, because

it isn't true, that's why.

Read the new Stephen Schwartz/Brookhaven paper on Heat Capacity (that blows the IPCC's estimate of climate sensitivity to Hell), or the Spencer, et al, paper on new evidence for the Lindzen Infrared Iris.

Never stopped them before

The BBC have been peddling this nonsense every day for years now. They publish everything and anything that supports the idea of man-made global-warming (now referred to as climate change as the world has been cooling since 98).

In April the BBC had all these experts predicting that 2007 would be the hottest and driest on record yet when it was cold and wet the same scientists were brought out to show how CC could cause it to be colder and wetter too, so basically CC causes weather! Jeez thanks for that, and how much are these scientists on?!!

I thick that the MMGW movement is slowly becoming unraveled as folk realize the 'well it must be' argument & automatically attributing any kind of strong weather to CC doesn't hold much weight. The BBC are right to calm down or risk looking stupid.

Good for them!

Facts are a global warming activists worst nightmare. Which is why they call the other side skeptics and use many other derogatory terms against them. If humans really are causing climate change, why are those who say it is so afraid of open debate? If there is rock solid evidence, why are they so afraid of discussion. If this film is about people causing global warming, then obviously it will have little truth and a lot of opinion and scare tactics. Just like the Inquisition, except this time Torquemada is Al Gore.

Good for the BBC! The last thing we need is another show based on opinion and innuendos. Planet Earth was really good and for the most part left such innuendos out of it. But they still couldn't resist, especially when talking about drowning polar bears while conveniently not mentioning that the Southern Hemisphere is unusually cold and the ANTarctic is increasing. South Africa saw snow this winter, something that hasn't happened there is decades.

British Brainwashing Corporation

Paxman was right when he slagged off the BBC recently - the BBC has become an Establishment toadie too afraid of criticism to actually say what needs to be said. I have always been afraid that the BBC would be destroyed through privatisation - now I realise the real threat; becoming a propaganda machine for the government and its friends (ie the US government and big multinationals). How long before the BBC is as untrustworthy as Fox or Chinese state TV?

The BBC need to grow a pair... after all, human related climate change is now pretty much universally accepted amongst the scientific community. How can it be impartial to report what is essentially a scientific fact? Next the BBC will have to can The Sky At Night because a few religious nuts think the universe is only 6000 years old.

Funny

Calling a spade, a spade

"It is not the BBC's job to lead opinion or proselytise on this or any other subject."

Will somebody please tell that to the BBC's Government arm ...... although I would much prefer that they get with the Program and do the Programming better than is their present hamfisted effort.

Strewth, it is not as if IT is difficult to show a world Lead. I wonder who are pulling their strings?

What is their job to be then, at great Public expense ...... vacuous, mindless rubbish masquerading as entertainment. Is that what they are good at?

There's no need to answer that. The Output speaks for ITself.

Is it their job to stop anyone else leading opinion, which is something which they are better at in their own limited way whenever they condone/instigate a Denial of Service attack to views which merely question those which they publish/share?

And there's no need to answer that either whenever the evidence is there in testimony available.

J'accuse, a canned BBC/a puppet organisation rather than an original Source of Information....... which must also be a reflection upon the State of the Nation ....with global implications.

Inventive Wastefulness

If the BBC shut themselves down for 6 hours they could raise nearly 2 Million pounds from the licence fee. The carbon footprint would lower as people would switch to other channels but the BBC would avoid all travel, electricity etc carbon costs and this money could go to subsidising a filter system on a coal fired power plant in China.

re: Calling a spade, a spade

Bog all to do with climate change

This is bog all to do with the arguments for and against climate change. It's everything to do with irritating little Hitlers in jumped-up rags like the Daily Mail bleating about how the BBC should be "Impartial" but only when that channel gets even the vaguest bit radical.

"Impartiality" is neo-Conservatism by another name, it just means protecting the status quo. Hacks like Waterhouse would be happy enough to see the BBC presenting tedious rubbish about the Royal Family, or Churchill, or gubbins like that, but not address political issues, that's "partial", "biased", whatever.

If you don't want to watch a programme on climate change then don't watch it, and the viewing figures will be low and it'll go away - which, to be fair, the BBC have already suggested is one reason not to show the special. But for some chief guy to say "it is not the BBC's job to save the planet" - that sums it up. What he means is "it is not the BBC's job to go against the government". The "Iraq dossier" affair got the BBC very worried, and they are retreating into their shell. Then again we should never expect radicalism from such a body.

I love climate change sceptics

I love climate change sceptics, they remind me of why I love science.

"Look - this new paper proves that the change is due to this infra-red effect or that solar output net effect or this straw or that straw". What about all the previous effects that came along and have been disproved? What about the vast majority of scientists leaning towards the idea that if you pump a lot of infra-red reflective gas into a quasi-closed system it will reflect more infra-red?

Well, because now we can use the effect of local change to show how globally things aren't changing. Look it was wet and cold this summer in the UK so GW must be nonsense. No, it's El Nino / La Nina combined with weaker thermo-haline currents as fresh water enters oceanic systems due to melting. Look it was snowing in South Africa last winter GW is all wrong, it didn't predict that. No, it's El Nino / La Nina combined with weaker thermo-haline currents as fresh water enter oceanic systems due to melting. Look it's wetter / drier / hotter / colder in this or that place. Look, look, look, it can't be caused by humans because it's not behaving how I predicted it might over the short-term. Short-term climate predictions are rubbish. They're as rubbish as weather forecasts which usually have a large margin of error because the climate and the environment is an enormously complex, chaotic system which we simply can't predict properly. But that's not an argument to go pumping gases into it.

The fact is, we really don't know. We don't know if the carbon we emit now is going to affect the lives of our children and their children or if it's a few drops in an ocean of natural carbon emission in the carbon cycle. We don't know what is going to happen but right now the climate is changing faster than it ever has (according to ice cores though how reliable are they?) and the weather is changing. Right now we should probably do the sensible thing and be cautious. If we can reign in our carbon output then we give ourselves loads of time to work out whether or not it's a problem. If we ignore the problem and fiddle while Rome burns by the time we turn to look, irreversible damage may have been caused but we don't know.

@Mathew and Wade Burchette

The point about global warming is that we wont get solid facts until it is too late. We have to take the advice of the IPCC and change the 'unlimited growth' archetype of the current world economy. Sure there are a minority of scientists that disagree with the IPCC - but there are probably some who also still think the world is flat, there are certainly some 'scientists' who believe in biblical creation of the world. There are definitely politicians who are counting on divine intervention to solve the worlds problems. None of this invalidates the advice of the IPCC who have weighed the evidence on our behalf and concluded that there is a problem.

The real problem the BBC have is that big business and politicians don't want to change the mass consumption and feelgood factor that gets them re-elected.

A lot of their voters also have a 'very nice lifestyle thank you and if you think I will change it then you can fcuk off'

@Bog all to do with climate change

It really is bog all to do with climate change, and yet the climate change "sceptics" have to start chipping in about Al Gore and what have you when it's a story about BBC impartiality, and they kick in about half way down the comments as usual.

I spent a while wondering why they always turn up, always say the same things and make such a noise, but the more I read about the issues involved the more I realise that they are being paid for their posts. Those aren't genuinely held opinions, nobody is that ignorant, they are the work of payment-per-post shills who have vaguely relevant news reports pointed out to them and get to make a bit on the side by pushing opinions aimed at casting FUD on the science of climate change in the aim of bolstering the status quo that benefits their employers.

overloaded emotional terminology

"climate change" == "weather"

We got weather, they got weather, everybody got weather

Cut through to the real issue: does this current decision not to 'proselytise about <insert name of issue here>' run counter to the original Reithian ideal for a Public Service Broadcaster to "inform, educate, entertain"?

Any celebs yet prepared to sign up to an 8 hour telethon "we all got weather - just relax"?

Only then could Auntie be able to preserve balance in the delivery of 'inform, educate and entertain'. One telethon for the "we're all going to die" lobby and one for the "nothing new here" brigade.

Facts?

Wade, Wade, Wade....

It's always interesting to see those who refuse to believe evidence use this argument. There is a wealth of evidence supporting the theory of global climate change, there are numerous papers by numerous scientists in many respected, peer reviewed publications describing this.

Lined up against this is the vested interests of some governments (US hang your head in shame), some corporates and some individuals all trying to ensure that their interests are met. This oposition has managed to twist this into a political arguement rather than a scientific argument yet they still claim there are no facts supporting the theory of global climate change.

There has been open debate, but amongst those who know what they are talking about, i.e. climatologists, that is how peer review works. That means that it shouldn't have to be re-debated by arm-chair scientists like yourself, in the same

everyone wants their own prejudice on the BBC

Who actually believes in free speech? If you do, you shouldn't demand that the media advance popular views (they don't need it). You should demand that they advance unpopular views.

Right now the BBC barely touches on anything outside a "comfort zone" of soft left/liberal ideas. Public spending and high taxes good; private education/health care and low taxes bad; public transport good/private transport bad. Nanny state good; individual freedom and responsibility bad.

People with contrary views, if they get on air at all, are announced with a "health warning" of their dodgy right wing status. It's not (just) that the current affairs programs have bias; it's the endless advancement of the BBC world view in "ordinary" programming that's most intellectually corrosive. These programs assume that leaving the car at home/eating less salt/banning smoking/etc/etc/etc are good.

It's neither here nor there that I agree with many of the things they advance. I am aware that significant numbers of people (sometimes majorities) disagree with it. If I believe in free speech, I should believe that these people should get an equal airing, and not rail against it!

Especially on a public service broadcaster that defends it's compulsory funding with claims in impartial output

When green activists should support the airing of programs that are skeptical about climate change, then I will believe that they think free speech is important.

So, should the BBC show Planet Relief? Well, yes they should (provided it satisfies non-political considerations: do licence fee payers want that sort of program?). But they should also give major air time to skeptical views. What chance of that? One measly hour of skeptical documentary late at night on Channel 4 and there was uproar...

Wrong

"This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality." - BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm

The Beeb have apparently decided the best way to lead discussion about climate change is to do documentaries and news gathering - i.e. activities where the BBC controls the editorial tone and direction - rather than act as facilitator for a bunch of wet celebrity activists. I think it's a great decision.

The future.

"I don't think our children have much of a future to look forward to."

So what?

Did OUR forefathers give two $hits about what they were leaving for us?

Did they fcuk!

And as for criticising the 'vested interests' of us 'deniers'....the IPCC and governments (such as ours) pushing the MMCC/AGW fallacy don't have any vested interests at all do they?

Dearie me!

And on the subject of the high priest of the MMCC/AGW religion (formerly known as Al Gore) - he has his mucky fingers shoved very deeply into the rather dubious pie of "carbon offsetting" so he doesn't have any vested interests either does he?

A timely end to the Climate Change Channel?

Thank lack-of-God for that. Whether it's happening or not you can have too much of a good thing, and it seems every time I switch to the BBC there's some pompous bore going on about why everyone else needs to make sacrifices for the greater good, "think about the children!" etc.

Unfortunately if they are going to turn down the "we're all going to die of global warming! And its *your* fault!!" thing from 11, they'll just choose something else to get utterly frantic about. It'd be nice if the organisation actually started representing all of the "British" in its name instead of the over-privileged pseudo-intellectual liberal middle classes and their self-aggrandising pontification. I won't hold my breath.

Free speech?

This is not free speech issue - the Global Climate Change discussion is not the same as the discussion on education, it's not about personal beliefs or points of view - it is about evidence.

In a discussion on quantum mechanics would we feel the need to have an impartial viewpoint presented by the BBC? Would we have to have a journalist/politician/footballer/pundit challenging string theory on the grounds that the scientists proposing it are exhibiting bias over brane theory? Would we give credence to some bloke banging on about his own, personal anecdotes over detailed, peer-reviewed research?

NO - so why do we have to put up with this when we are talking about global climate change.

Raise consciousness

@Elisha Sessions

Good spot. If they're being truthful about the reasons for canning it, I say good. I'd much prefer some well-made documentaries from BBC Bristol to some fool comedians trying to "'raise consciousness' about the science of climate change". How can they possibly raise consciousness? Consuming any media these days means you can think of little else.

On the other hand, the BBC's science documentaries have been a bit patchy of late. Horizon's standards seem to have slipped to a particularly low level.

Idiotic

If you want to switch off all your electrical equipment, you are free to do so whenever you like. Why wait for the BBC to tell you?

The BBC should not be involved in `raising awareness' (eco-communist propaganda) about something as nebulous, unproven and completely and utterly idiotic as anthropogenic carbon dioxide based climate change.

A program pitching the alarmists\eco-loonies against the skeptics - now that would be worth watching.

@Robinson

Seriously, get out a bit more and try reading some scientific literature (not a report on scientific work) before formulating your philosophies, rather than The Economist or Forbes.

"A program pitching the alarmists\eco-loonies against the skeptics - now that would be worth watching."

No it wouldn't. Everyone knows how it would go. The eco-loonies would get overly emotional, start contradicted themselves and end up looking ridiculous.

Now if you replaced eco-loonies with a group of climate scientists, encompassing all the different fields of climate science, then you might find that the it is the skeptics who look ridiculous as they constantly trot out dated scientific work or erroneous interpretations of current work.

free speech is never out of scope

You can't declare that climate change isn't an issue of free speech, on the grounds that "the" science makes it a fact. Whether or not is is established as fact, is an opinion, and that makes free speech an issue.

Otherwise you're simply asserting the right to grant or deny people platform based on your interpretation of the evidence. You may feel that's entirely appropriate, but be honest and admit it's censorship.

[Aside: why is climate change supported by "the" science, when other things are merely supported by science. Is "the science" more authoritative than "science"?]

@Idiotic

No, it wouldn't be worth watching. Have you ever seen Stephen Dawkins debate with a creationist? It's a simple demolition of fundamentalist religion by science. A debate with climate skeptics would be no different, superstition versus reason. As usual the skeptics, unable to summon up any credible scientific evidence for their claims would just end up shouting everyone down so they could feel like they were winning.

Title

@Idiotic and @Jim,

If you want to know just how AGW data collection and analysis proceeds, just visit climateaudit.org. If after seeing exactly what goes on you still think climatologists are doing real "science", then I suggest you don't really understand how science actually works.

Free speech?

Icenian,

Please re-read my earlier point:

"There has been open debate, but amongst those who know what they are talking about, i.e. climatologists, that is how peer review works. That means that it shouldn't have to be re-debated by arm-chair scientists like yourself, in the same"

I'm not trying to deny people a platform based on their viewpoint but deny them an equal platform based on their lack of expertise.

@Robinson

I find it interesting that the McKintyre and McKitrick, the experts you link to, are experts in finance and economics, one coming from a mineral exploitation background, giving a whiff of vested interest, and the people who disagree with them (and they do disagree very strongly- see some sample counterarguments on realclimate.org ) are experts in climatology.

In any given field, it seems rational to seek the expertise of people who belong to that field over the expertise of people who are specialised in totally different fields, surely? Even if you are uncomfortable with the findings of the former group?

Rattle the woodwork, see what comes out

@simon croft - "The point about global warming is that we wont get solid facts until it is too late. We have to take the advice of the IPCC and change the 'unlimited growth' archetype of the current world economy. "

Priceless example of irrationality piled on irrationality. I need to get my socks off to count all the prejudices in there.

Title

Fair point breakfast, but a scientific study cannot be truly valid unless it is replicable . The point of climateaudit is to show how ad-hoc (and often just plain mathematically wrong) the methods they are using actually are and how often their published work is not enough to reproduce their results. Moreover, none of these "boffins" are trained mathematicians (trained in statistics) and their conclusions are highly unreliable (modeling past temperatures using dodgy temperature proxies for example), so I don't think we should jump every time they publish. At least the point of this story is that there are arguments on both sides and so the BBC should not be promoting one over the other. Not all skeptics are creationist lunatics (indeed Hansen, who published the famous "Hockey Stick" paper is on record are saying skeptics are participating in the "destruction of creation" - so exactly who is are the creationists in this debate?).

At the very least, there is no clarity on the issues involved in climate change and there is certainly no consensus, so promotion of policy is really arbitrary and I happen to think somewhat absurd. Another problem is that "climate change" is bundled in with environmentalism in general. Nobody things more pollution is a good thing, but we do disagree on just how much of a pollutant CO2 actually is. Personally, I think its a wonderful gas (plants grow much more vigorously in its presence!).

free speech, round 3

People might very well wish to attribute greater significance to the pronouncements of climatologists than those of comedians, film stars, politicians and TV "personalities".

If the BBC wants to stop all mention of climate change in it's programs, except for peer reviewed evidence, that would be a one thing. And utterly different to letting Al Gore, Ricky Gervais et al. pronounce on climate change whilst denying equally (un)qualified skeptics the same platform.

free specch - over and out

I utterly refute that scurrilous assertion that I'm beginning to see sense!

"lets leave climate change discussions to those who know what they are talking"

If we /knew/ who knew what they're talking about, then we wouldn't have anything to discuss.

Whereas lots of people think they know who knows what they're talking about, others are fairly sure that they know the others don't know who knows what they're talking about. Nobody really knows if anyone knows who knows what they're talking about, so we'll never know for sure if these people knew what they were talking about or just thought they knew that they knew what they thought they knew.